Wednesday, September 07, 2016

This looks more entertaining than 99 percent of the magazines in the average magazine rack. Seriously, the only thing that befuddles me more than the decision to fund some of the magazines out there is the movies that are made these days.

44 Comments:

Just in time for the end of the universal empire... or beginning of it. Either way it is as a fly about to be swatted. Doesn't matter which side wins... or for how long. Although, wasn't there a movie about a group that kept the majority docile, at ease, and free range, right until... Yeah.

Seriously, the only thing that befuddles me more than the decision to fund some of the magazines out there is the movies that are made these days.

The magazines are produced for advertisers, not readers. Mu daughter, who has never subscribed to a magazine in her life, gets at least 2 magazines in the mail every week. Hundreds of pounds of glossy paper every year, most of which is of no interest to her, Elle Decor, Whore-mopolitan, etc.

Interestingly, Redbook has gone from the magazine my mother ditched when they went full-bore sexual revolution in the seventies, through the firey hell of being Rosie O'Donnell magazine in the 80s, back to being a magazine aimed at wives and mothers.

No befuddlement necessary. When people treat the IOU's of others as wealth, wealth is created by borrowing (no matter how much of a waste of money is the resultant spending.)

Under this regime of Monetary Madness, borrowing to prop up a capital-consumption black hole (e.g., the NYT, any of its POS sisters in the "news" media, Elon Musk's latest con job, the New Solyndra, the local franchise of George Soros' BLM, etc.) is actually an engine of wealth creation. [I know everyone knows this, btw.]

Since 1964/1971 up is down, left is right, black is white or green or blue and words are what we say they are at this moment, which can change in the next.

This perspective makes me wonder just what, exactly, is real nowadays. When Apple's market cap is larger than Exxon/Mobil's, and when Google (whose primary business is---what?---exactly?) is a force to be reckoned with, I'm no longer certain there's any there, there.

When this surreal period of borrowing-as-wealth-creation ends, I'm not sure what will be left standing, but I doubt what's thriving today will be among it. The entire world looks like a crack-whore to me, so addicted is it to the credit bubble.

It's not like with the NYT, where they don't necessarily need readers because it's worth it to them to subsidize favored writers and get the marching orders out to the faithful. They can go on snubbing normal people forever. Magazines aren't like that, or most of them aren't. Presumably National Review and the New Republic are useful to somebody. But what's People if no people read it?

Yes, the NYT will be around as long as Carlos Slim keeps coughing up hundreds of millions to subsidize it as a sheer propaganda rag....but these magazines are being subsidized by the taxpayers, one way or another....

@9-Regarding Redbook, I used to find that laying around at work. On the rare occasion I paged through, it was all Why He's Too Lazy to Find Your G-spot and How to Find 20 Cocks to Suck Tonight, inbetween recipes and decorating your living room with found driftwood.

One article, which I found amusing, described a singles party at a bar which had the men wear their annual salary and erect penis length on their shirts. Which was supposed to be equitable, because men judge women based purely on what's readily apparent, which of course is BS. I find it funny what it reveals about what women think women are interested in, namely money and dick.

Reading these covers, I suspect there would be a decent market for satirical articles to go with them. The only problem being that today's satire is tomorrow's reality. Duffel Blog being the most notorious example.

The legal slave trade is mostly moslem, but in the US blacks try to get white girls hooked on crack to pimp them out. As seen in the recent "Once you go black you are addicted to crack or an alligator snack" post from last week.

Couple problems with this. Although the white representation is lowered to a barely-acceptable 33%*, that appears to be a white boy on the left. For a magazine cover, it should be either a girl of white or a Girl of Color, with the white boys, if any, moved to the back of the bus. Fuhrermore, and most concerning, the white boy has his arm raised up, an obvious act of macroaggression. If that's not enough, IT'S HIS RIGHT ARM, people.

*It is lower than the 40% ceiling permitted by McGraw-Hill.

The publisher needs some diversity intervention and guidance. Yahoo does it right- https://groups.yahoo.com/neo

Notice no white girls are allowed anywhere near the white boy, who really didn't need to be in this picture in the first place. The women of white are to be closely attended by Blacks, or the occasional Asian. If the boy of white, or dead white male, is permitted to raise his arm, it must be visibly lower than the raised arms of the People of Color that surround him, and it should be placed behind them.